If it is a continuation – yes, otherwise no. The number of the project should be given. Even if the applicant mentions that a similar proposal has already been submitted, this will be checked very carefully by REA. If after checking REA sees it is not the case, they will not consider it to be similar.

It depends very much on the research training programme. There could be research training programmes which are very specific and others very broad, for example with a bottom-up approach.

Implementing partners can recruit researchers if they are in the list of countries eligible to receive EU funding. If not, they can contribute to the implementation of the action but they cannot recruit researchers and are associated partners. A legal entity based in a Third Country cannot recruit researchers if this country is not in the list of eligible countries to receive EU funding, however an additional employment contract could be concluded with such legal entity like in PF, but this would depend on the fellowship scheme and the main employment contract would still be with the European host institution.

It depends on the role of the organisation. Normally the associated partner is hosting/ providing a secondment and/ or training, moreover, an associated partner does not receive any funding.

In the case of a regional authority providing funding only to the beneficiary, this should be explained in the proposal, but it should be considered part of the beneficiary’s own resources.

When talking about impact, this is prospective, it is in the future, assuming that the project is successful and that it achieves everything that it set up to achieve. The applicants could base themselves on some other studies to strengthen or build their case about the impact they could have, before the impact is actually achieved.

Economic/ technological and Societal impact sub-sections in 2.4 are linked to the (economic) impact. What impact the project results, not only in terms of research results but also in terms of the results of the programme as such (e.g. new concept of training, new approach, etc.).

This section is linked to the European Innovation CAPACITY. It is not focusing on IMPACT (which is strongly linked to the project results) but on CAPACITY or creating critical mass. Thus this section is more linked to the delivery of uniquely trained researchers in a certain topic. This can contribute to the CAPACITY (e.g. next generation researchers that have unique and improved skills and level of expertise compared to the researchers today in and outside Europe, etc.).

For Table 3.1d in case of one researcher with split/ multiple recruitments, the applicant can complete the table only once, listing both/ all recruitments. The same goes for table 1.3a provided that the table is clear and easy to understand and has the information about the two recruitments per fellow.

It would be good to have the eight elements listed on p. 82 of the Work Programme 2021-2022 already in the proposal, however, if the applicants don’t have enough space, REA will add them at the grant agreement preparation phase.

If the fellow was 1) performing their main activity in the lab based abroad and they were physically present there, and/ or 2) they were also residing abroad, then they should be considered eligible for France.

Timesheets and declarations are not requested in MSCA projects (contrary to other Horizon Europe actions based on actual costs). To prove that the researcher worked on their MSCA project, it is sufficient to present a contract with the host institution together with additional documents proving the fellow’s dedication to the project, if needed.

Moreover, declarations are not allowed by the auditors. REA has confirmed that the declaration on exclusive work is not applicable for audits carried out in MSCA ITN, IF and COFUND actions to determine time spent working on the action. It is expected this will continue in Horizon Europe.

As outlined in the H2020 Indicative Audit Programme, such evidence may include lab books, attendance lists, conference abstracts, library records, travel expenses, timesheets, reports to supervisor, meeting minutes, e-mail exchanges, etc. and other open sources (e.g. the internet) to see if the researcher worked on activities other than their  project. The auditors will also look at the researcher’s employment contract or corresponding agreement to see if it complies with Article 32 of the H2020 Annotated Model Grant Agreement, including but not limited to the obligation that the researcher works exclusively for the action.

Fellows need documentation in the form of a contract that shows the 50% commitment or something similar since MSCA does not typically operate with timesheets.

When talking about impact, this is prospective, it is in the future, assuming that the project is successful and that it achieves everything that it set up to achieve. The applicants could base themselves on some other studies to strengthen or build their case about the impact they could have, before the impact is actually achieved.

There are different scientific panels and proposals are ranked within their scientific panel. Proposals in some panels are more STEM-oriented and would have a different kind of impact than proposals in the SOC panel for instance, but these proposals would not compete against the STEM-oriented proposals. It should also be considered that the impact is now broadened to encompass not only a purely scientific impact but also impact on the society at large. This can be an area where the SSH proposals could actually have a competitive advantage.

The first thing to note is, that even though they cannot directly claim costs, it does not mean that they cannot indirectly receive some funding for the role they have in the DN. Typically for each unit cost, there is one part that goes to the researcher and then there is the institutional part, and this part should not be seen as funding for just this particular fellow, and this beneficiary. It is rather a common pot for the whole consortium to run the project. In the consortium agreement the consortium defines how this is split. This funding can be distributed to the different partners according to their needs in the project: some partners provide more trainings, for instance, the coordinator typically has more management costs, so this funding can be redistributed, and some of this money can go to associated partners to cover the costs of them hosting researchers for secondments, or for them to provide trainings. So these are internal arrangements within the consortium (in the broader sense with the associated partners) so they can get indirectly money for their action. Of course, there are also non-financial incentives; the interest for them to participate could be transfer of knowledge or being part of a dynamic network and being associated to the research project.

For PF, direct financial benefits may not be there but there are plenty indirect benefits – scientific contributions, networking, getting experience in this type of projects, hosting events.

It is recommended that at first there is an effort to ensure that the outgoing host respects the agreement – especially if they signed a partnership agreement with the beneficiary. For the amendment it is necessary to have evidence that the beneficiary has at least attempted to make it work before they propose the amendment. Also the researcher should properly document the shortcomings.

Brief information should be provided in part B1 and more details should be provided in part B2.

Secondments are not encoded as an associated partner. They should be declared in the specific question at the end of Part A, and detailed in Part B. This is reflected in the structure of the participants’ information in the submission wizard: • EF: possibility to encode one host organisation and one associated partner (which is only used in case of a placement) • GF: possibility to encode one host organisation and two associated partners (one mandatory, as outgoing phase host, and one optional in case of a placement).

Unfortunately, REA cannot intervene to alter a submitted proposal after the call deadline. However, if after the evaluation the proposal reaches the funding threshold, the beneficiary can further discuss to clarify the secondment issue during the Grant preparation (GAP) with the Project Officer assigned to the proposal.

There is no need to submit a separate application for the widening call. This is the procedure, as described on p.56 of the Widening participation and strengthening the European Research Area Work programme 2021-2022: “In order to apply for the ERA Fellowships call, applicants need to submit their proposal to the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCA) Postdoctoral Fellowships 2021. To be eligible to this call the host organisation must be located in an eligible widening country. The application to the (MSCA) Postdoctoral Fellowships 2021 will be automatically resubmitted to this call in case the proposal fails to reach an adequate place in the ranking to be funded. This simplified submission procedure to the ERA Fellowships call presents applicants moving to Widening countries with an additional funding opportunity but there is the possibility to opt out during the application stage.”

Timesheets and declarations are not requested in MSCA projects (contrary to other Horizon Europe actions based on actual costs). To prove that the researcher worked on their MSCA project, it is sufficient to present a contract with the host institution together with additional documents proving the fellow’s dedication to the project, if needed.

Moreover, declarations are not allowed by the auditors. REA has confirmed that the declaration on exclusive work is not applicable for audits carried out in MSCA ITN, IF and COFUND actions to determine time spent working on the action. It is expected this will continue in Horizon Europe.

As outlined in the H2020 Indicative Audit Programme, such evidence may include lab books, attendance lists, conference abstracts, library records, travel expenses, timesheets, reports to supervisor, meeting minutes, e-mail exchanges, etc. and other open sources (e.g. the internet) to see if the researcher worked on activities other than their  project. The auditors will also look at the researcher’s employment contract or corresponding agreement to see if it complies with Article 32 of the H2020 Annotated Model Grant Agreement, including but not limited to the obligation that the researcher works exclusively for the action.

Fellows need documentation in the form of a contract that shows the 50% commitment or something similar since MSCA does not typically operate with timesheets.

Organisations can only encode secondments that are eligible for EC funding. So organisations could encode the secondments going to the UK, but not those from the UK to a beneficiary. It is the dates included in the mobility declarations (previously researchers’ declarations) which are used for financial reporting.  

The researcher is eligible to participate, the change of status does not affect their eligibility.

The UK partners will be funded with the UKRI Horizon Europe Guarantee, in line with the original budget line. They will no longer be able to be included as a beneficiary but will need to become Associated Partners (APs).  Secondments to UK APs from Member States (MS) and/ or Associated Countries (AC) will be funded by the EC as originally foreseen in the proposal. Secondments from UK APs to MS/ AC/ other APs will be funded via UKRI, in line with the budget line and secondment plan in the proposal. Secondments from another AP to the UK will also be funded via UKRI.